Objective professional reviews?

[tshrimp]

Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.

Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?

[CJR238]

Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.

Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?

Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.

[upstatedoc]

Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.

Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?

Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.

My Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.

[CJR238]

Thanks CJR238, that was some good answers.

Something else I noticed in a lot of videos about Quick Trigger. Is it me or do most of those guns look like something used to clock a fast ball at a baseball game? The Bushnell looks to be a favorite. Do those accurately simulate what is seen while driving?

Those Bushnells are toy radar guns, like the ones used to measure a baseball (real guns are $1k++, not $99). But they do provide basic useful information to simulate what is seen while driving with a RD. Not good for real testing IMO, but they do the job.

My Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.

Ya, I am amazed at how well they work for under $99. I'm surprised I don't see them being used by law enforcement with low/no budgets.

[The Chariot]

My Bushnell will accurately clock cars out to 1500 feet, not too shabby.

In optimal conditions (not a lot of other cars, flat road) I've gotten them out well past 2500 feet, but only with most trigger pulls, not all.

I've found a very good use for Bushnells. Let your rabbit get a few hundred feet ahead and pull the trigger. If they brake check then you know that not only do you have a rabbit... you have one with his ears listening ahead of you.

[ben721364]

I no longer recognize this thread. <g> How we got from a quest for objective reviews of radar detectors to a discussion of using a radar gun as a toy is beyond me!

[The Chariot]

I no longer recognize this thread. <g> How we got from a quest for objective reviews of radar detectors to a discussion of using a radar gun as a toy is beyond me!

The same way someone asks about the differences between two Whistler models and it gets derailed into a Whistler verses the competition thread! The Whistler issue, BTW, is why I don't use GOL as a sole source but rather as one of many sources. There's personal bias towards the owners of Whistler products from one, though he did not post them on this site his comments are out there on the Internet. I simply cannot trust any single source, no matter how good, they all have some flaws.

[Stealth Stalker]

The Whistler issue, BTW, is why I don't use GOL as a sole source but rather as one of many sources. There's personal bias towards the owners of Whistler products from one, though he did not post them on this site his comments are out there on the Internet. I simply cannot trust any single source, no matter how good, they all have some flaws.

Interesting. The only things that GOL measure are sensitivity and QT, both of which they reported Whistler to perform quite admirably at. So you're saying we shouldn't trust anyone who reports good results with a Whistler?

[The Chariot]

The Whistler issue, BTW, is why I don't use GOL as a sole source but rather as one of many sources. There's personal bias towards the owners of Whistler products from one, though he did not post them on this site his comments are out there on the Internet. I simply cannot trust any single source, no matter how good, they all have some flaws.

Interesting. The only things that GOL measure are sensitivity and QT, both of which they reported Whistler to perform quite admirably at. So you're saying we shouldn't trust anyone who reports good results with a Whistler?

That's not what I said. Where did I say that? Personally, I think the Whistlers are darn good bang for the buck and I just talked to Radarbusters today about ordering an SE (getting it as a secondary for the wife's vehicle and for some product testing). I said I don't trust that there's not bias in GOL, just as with any other tests I've seen. Not saying GOL tests aren't among the best, but I'm not about to commit $$$ to purchases based on one group, individual or company. I don't question the results of GOL, but rather the criteria they use to determine what is tested.

GOL is a great site, but I've found no single set of tests out there (yet) which I would consider the holy grail. No offense to the GOL group meant by that as its testing and there's no need for them to take data personally (though as I noted there is one) --- I understand in some small part how much effort it takes based on an all day jammer meet (not all, but some small part) and don't get me wrong: I really do appreciate the tests. However, even those tests I participated in... I cannot trust them as the sole source for a purchase decision, there are just too many variables for any single test to cover all the bases. For instance, how do various detectors perform in noisy environments rather than tests which show raw performance only (which in itself is a biased test since most drivers commute in cities and interstates next to cities), to help people determine which detectors suit how they drive.

Without questioning everything, one can never get closer to the truth, and that means a lot of questioning since technology progression makes truth a moving target.

[CJR238]

I no longer recognize this thread. <g> How we got from a quest for objective reviews of radar detectors to a discussion of using a radar gun as a toy is beyond me!

Think about it. Imagine if you were looking for good objective reviews and you didn't know the gun they were using was actually not one used in real traffic enforcement, and it is what some use to check the speed of a baseball in a little league game.
Though it may not change the objective results much, they wouldn't be realistic. Therefore not as valuable in making a final decision on a RD.

If accurate, realistic, objective testing could be done with cheep $100 radar/lidar units as apposed to $2000 ones, a lot more of us would be using them for real testing. The local law enforcement could also save a ton of cash.